Fair enough, but they should be moved to 4.3 so they wouldn’t terrorize 3.0 vehicles.
I agree with that.
1 Like
They need to move PT-76 up to 6.0. It has excellent reload and amazing round for 5.3.
The PT-76B has an excellent reload, two-plane stabilizer, and decent HEATFS, but the mobility, gun handling, gun depression, and armour is why it sits at 5.3.
Pretty much everything (including SPAAs) can kill it rather easily, and it doesn’t have the mobility nor gun depression to get into better positions.
Same problem as M51
Well, the M-51 doesn’t have the issue of getting frontally penetrated by SPAAs / tank secondary weapons very often.
The M-51 also has a much better HEAT shell (400mm pen, 1KG of TNT VS 200mm pen, 550g of TNT), a 50.cal (if you’re talking about the premium one), smoke grenades (in case you need some temporary cover), and much better gun depression (-8 instead of -4).
The two-plane stabilizer and 5s reload is nice on the PT-76B but it suffers a lot from its poor mobility and very bad armour. It can’t flank, nor can it brawl very easily because HEATFS doesn’t one-shot very often (unless it’s an open-top vehicle) and the armour is abysmal.
They can kill every thing at there br without aiming for weak spots. M-51 Can pen Tiger 2 hulls. Every time I play Jagdtiger and there is M-51 on the enemy team, I always die to it. It is an amazing snipper. The problem is that most cold war designs that are bellow 7.3 are a problem. This is because most of them have HEAT-FS that can pen anything and every thing.
HEATFS doesn’t one-shot many things (especially lower caliber HEATFS shells like 90mm and 76mm). You often need to shoot multiple times to kill all their crew members (or, if you can of course, aim for their ammunition).
Yes, but most GRB maps are small, and the Jagdtiger / Tiger II H can often one-shot them just as easily too.
I don’t think so. There’s a reason why War Thunder bases their vehicles’ BRs off of statistics rather than what time period they were created.
It’s why the Tiger II H is 0.3s higher than the M-51 (and still doing much better) than the M-51 despite the M-51 being made 18 years later:
The Tiger II H has much better armour (so against non-HEATFS slingers, it survives much better), much better one-shot capability for its round, more smoke grenades, all while still having the same reload as the M-51 and only slightly worse mobility (M-51 has a pathetic 5km/h reverse speed, and only mediocre acceleration and top speed).
In an uptier, maybe the M-51 is better off (because then the Tiger II’s armour starts mattering less, and penetration starts mattering more), but uptiers are only one side of the whole story.
That is clip is you shooting an already disabled Maus lol.
Also, you literally said the very thing you were mocking me for.
I said: “good luck doing that in a match” then you literally said the same thing to @Necrons31467 a few replies later.
So you just don’t wish to admit your OP toy aka the T26E5 is an easy SL maker for you, because you lack the resources to have premium?
Oh btw I only buy premium 1 time a year, when it’s on sale lol.
Work smarter not harder
That’s what I’ve been saying for years.
Which is exactly what I said.
1 Like
The 4 step difference is quite a lot when you consider the m42 is a LOT more mobile than the Ostwind II.
And the m42 might be lacking aphe, but the pen is significantly better and the turret rotation is slightly better.
m51 is overtiered - slow, armor is weak for the BR and has poor gun handling. The only thing it has going for it is pen - and because it’s stuck with HEAT, the m51 is trash on any map that has lots of cover / foliage.
Should be 6.0.
1 Like
The T26E5’s armour is definitely not of 7.3 caliber (there’s a bunch of weakspots everywhere – including the forehead) but definitely ~7.0 ish.
Worse armour, acceleration, and gun than the 7.3 T32 but much faster reload (7.5s instead of 14.5s).
The extra mobility is nice if you want to fight tanks but it doesn’t make a huge difference against planes (they are both open-top anyways, so a bomb anywhere near you will kill you anyways). The Ostwind II’s BR is mostly because of its anti-air capabilities rather than its anti-tank capabilities, though it can still work as a light tank shredder.
The 72mm of pen is nice but, again, it’s only AP (not even APCBC), so its angle performance sucks, and it can’t exploit cupola weakspots. It’s pretty much only good against relatively weak side-armour or weak frontal turret armour (like with the T-34-57 and Panzer IV).
Keep in mind that the Lvkv42 is at 4.7 and is arguably even better as a pseudo IFV / light tank with an autocannon since it has better gun depression (especially if you use suspension controls), access to 68mm pen APHE and access to 95mm pen AP (though it has worse mobility and slightly worse anti-tank firerate).
I think 4.3 for the M42 / M19A1 makes the most sense as a result.
Also, the regular Ostwind is all the way down at 3.3, with -10 degrees of gun depression, 250 RPM ~52mm pen APHE, with decent armour against 50.cals… but it’s rather slow. It would be a whole 1.0 BR difference to the M42 / M19A1 😅
1 Like
LOL - looking at statshark the Lvkv 42 has 2x as many ground kills as air kills.
m42 ratio is better - BUT - still shows more ground kills than air kills.
Looks like players treat them like the ZSU-57 and the Leopard 40/70.
1 Like
Yeah, I’m not really surprised. I used to love using it as as a light autocannon tank back when it was still 4.3. It’s way more potent against T-34s and Panzer IVs than the M42 / M19A1 because of its APHE!
1 Like
Ehh somewhat, while it is stuck with heat, it does use post war French heat, which is pretty much heat fs for post pen damage so it’s still usable.
1 Like
I think it’s usable at 6.3 but it isn’t anything crazy, and it certainly isn’t overperforming. The hull armour at 6.3 is abysmal. At least at 6.0 it may be of some use (such as against the 76mm US guns that are more common at 5.3 - 5.7).
2 Likes
I am once again begging on my hands and knees for the t58 to get utterly neutered with a substantial BR increase.
1 Like